Posted: Oct 20, 2018 1:44 pm
by Thommo
jamest wrote:
Thommo wrote:
And also the OP refers to a term "truth mill" which isn't defined, but has previously been used to mean "a way of assigning a value of true or false to a statement", but carried a connotation of Jamest not liking that way.

As stated, it's been several years since I first coined the term. I've just tried searching for the original post in which I mention it but the search engine seems limited to a 5 year period and didn't find it? If someone else can find it, that would be useful.


The forum search is not limited to a 5 year period. This is easily confirmable.

Presumably the reason that you can't find use of the term beyond 5 years ago is because it wasn't used beyond 5 years ago.

jamest wrote:Anyway, for me the term was meant as a reference for the approach/method in which we address and process any input or idea. This is usually dictated by previously accepted dogma residing within the skull, such that the incoming idea is processed in that light. This is even true for input about physical events where the dogma of scientific beliefs dictates what we think is happening or shall happen. Each belief we accept adds to the machinery within our skull and thus contributes to the manner in which an incoming idea will be processed. The output is thus dictated by the 'machinery' and not the input. This explains the diversity and spectrum of opinion one can readily witness in any arena of life.


That is an extremely long-winded way of describing a process for assigning a value of true or false to a statement.

This was not the substantive part of my post though. Which focused on the large, elementary error that underlies the only meaningful part of the opening post. The real point is that these claims (and thus everything that you think proceeds from them) are obviously false:
jamest wrote:...the bottom-line - regarding our skulls - is that the output is not contingent upon the input.

...

The bottom-line is that the input into our skull does not dictate the output, thus OUR SKULL dictates the output.


The output does vary with the input. A man might strike up a conversation with what he perceives to be with his friend, but not strike up a conversation with what he perceives to be a tomato plant. Different inputs -> different outputs. Not: different inputs -> same output.

Our actions, evaluations and cognitive processes depend both on the pre-existing neural structures (which in part depend on historical and formative experiences) AND on the present "inputs".

There is no mystery for evolution to solve here. Different, but similar structures behaving in different but similar ways is to be expected. Nobody thinks all human brains are identical, they obviously are not, they vary in mass by as much as 20% within a normal range, they have different fine level structures, and in some cases have larger structural differences observable in, say, an MRI.

There is of course also the additional irony that having said in the OP that science is metaphysically impotent, you're here arguing for a metaphysical position based on science. Which is another, recurring, self-contradiction.